Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2008

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Crzycheetah 05:10, 30 May 2008 [1].

---

Oh boy, another Olympics medal count (don't worry, I'll try to wait until this one is at least half done before nominating another... No promises though) Anyway, its modelled after the 1928 Summer count and 1976 Summer count and fully sourced. Like always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the sentences that describe the most medals or most gold medals of individual athletes is out of place, since these are lists of medal count by nation? Seems like they'd be better placed in a list of athletes who won medals at the games. - Marrio (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Noble Story. GreenJoe 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please specify? I think Noble Story's concerns have been addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a comment Perhaps move, or copy reference 6 to the sentence ending in "but tested positive for carphedon and lost her medal." Otherwise it looks like Noble has addressed everything, and it meets all the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sixth ref confirms that only one person lost a medal (and doesn't give any specifics). The seventh is a specific for that case. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Look good now, Scorpion. It has my approval. Noble Story (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [2].

---

This list seems ready to become FL. It is well referenced, and has a nicely written lead. It seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 15:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No free images available of the teams? Qst (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently looking for the NBA Finals trophy, but can't seem to find one at the moment. I'll keep looking. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found one within two minutes, on Spurs page. I've put it up. Noble Story (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant free pictures of the teams to go down the side of the list if you could fit them in. Qst (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems to fulfill all criteria. It is well structured, adequately sourced, very easy and clear to read, also good lead paragraph.—Chris! _ct 16:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Although I'd want the NBA champ from the Western Conference colored with a reddish tint. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say that again? I think the champions from the Western Conference are already shaded blue. Noble Story (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See NBA Conference Finals. The Western Conference Finals logo is colored red. See also List of Super Bowl champions where the AFC is colored red. --Howard the Duck 11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but doing that would mean a complete overhaul of the table. It's pretty clear who is from the West and who is from the East, unlike the Super Bowl champs list. I think it can stay the same. Noble Story (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then use light green or any other color except a bluish hue. --Howard the Duck 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to change the table, you might want to implement something like this. Hello32020 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I'll change the light blue to light green. Blue is the color associated to the Eastern Conference so for NBA enthusiasts it'll be quite awkward. --Howard the Duck 14:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object! :) Please see WP:COLOUR, and choose one that is a little less trippy Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, that green is yuck. How about one of those nice pastel shade of colours mentioned at WP:COLOURS? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change the color into light yellow. --Howard the Duck 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Last suggestion: the cross is better then the asterisk, but it's awfully big. Howabout ^† ? Drewcifer (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made it smaller.—Chris! _ct 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good. GreenJoe 00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [3].

---

Self-nomination. Looked at Lost (season 1) and copied the format from there. The only image has a fair use rationale. I believe the list has finally reached a point that it's well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Information that needs to be cited is. --Gman124 ^talk 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've got a few more minor concerns after a re-read but I'm happy to support as there's no doubt they'll be addressed rapidly :)
  • was aired of NBC in the US - "was aired on"? Done
    • US > "U.S." per MoS Done
  • Is there a better title for Plot from real life experiences? I'm thinking maybe "Storyline inspirations" or "Inspirations for storylines"; thoughts? Done
  • The Elaine story in "The Letter" was inspired - how about "Elaine's story in..."? Done
  • Wikilink Angels & Yankees. Done
  • Season three received eight Emmy nominations, of these two were won - either use a semicolon replacing the comma or reword latter half to "two of which were won" or something similar. Done
  • David Steinberg was nominated for Directors Guild of America Award for "Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Comedy Series" for "The Tape" episode - still need to correct episode phrase to "episode 'The Tape'". Done
  • Any reason why Exclusive Stand-Up Material is capitalised? Done
• Thanks in advance for the changes :) —97198 talk 07:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed all comments and thanks for the support. --Gman124 ^talk 12:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good now. Meets all the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [4].

---

Self-nomination. The list provides full bibliographic citations for Einstein's scientific publications, as categorized and cross-referenced in the 1951 bibliography published in the commemorative volume Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume II edited by Paul A. Schilpp. Where possible, translations of the German titles are taken from Einstein's collected papers put out by the Einstein Papers Project. Citations of individual publications in Abraham Pais' biography Subtle is the Lord are given as well. The works are grouped into journal articles, book chapters, books, and authorized translations. For each type, the entries are listed in chronological order in a sortable table; the ordering may be changed by the reader to group articles by subject or journal or title. Einstein's collaborative works with others are highlighted in lavender. The WikiProjects for Physics, Mathematics and the History of Science have been alerted. Willow (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Wow. Just wow. Quite a list. Some quick things:

• There are a number of unreferenced statements in the 'Chronology and Major Themes' sections and in the small intro paragraph to the 'journal articles' section.

What would you like to see referenced? I didn't put a reference over every sentence because, oftentimes, the given reference pertained to the whole bullet point. I see that I overlooked referencing general relativity and the Einstein-Brillouin-Keller method; I'll try to get to those today. Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You mentioned the lavender highlighting in your nomination, but the only place you explain that in the text is at the end of the 'Chronology and themes' section. Problem is, if a reader skips that section (because it's not obvious that this is introductory to the formatting of the tables themselves), they might be confused. One solution might be to break off that paragraph and make it the intro to a new section (List of scientific publications) with the current publication sections becoming sub-sections.
• For the lead:

• First, per ongoing discussions, I don't think you need the, 'This article lists...' line, since it's redundant to the title.

I incorporated that and the lavender-highlighting stuff into a revised second paragraph of the lead. Those are both good insights; the article seems much better now, thank you! :) Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to expand the lead to talk about some of the important bibliographical information covered in the lists, e.g. When did he stop publishing in German and why?, What were his first and last publications?, Was he more productive in some periods than others? Were some journals more prestigious/significant than others?, etc. Right now, the lead is more of a lead for Einstein's scientific contributions than his scientific publications.

I can list his first and last publications, although they're obvious from the Index numbers. I can also discuss how many articles he published each year (or make a graph); but scientific productivity is not necessarily well-measured by number of articles, so I don't really see how that would contribute. I haven't encountered any scholarship on the other points, such as why he wrote in German vs. English, and I wouldn't want to fall afoul of WP:NOR by speculating, so it's best if I keep silent. But if you have references for those questions, and feel that other readers would want to know about them, please feel free to add them! Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this, though. It's a huge task. Marrio (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marrio! :) I'm glad you like it. Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citation needed tags in three places where there isn't a reference for the paragraph, all in the chronology and major themes section. As to the lead, I was just thinking that there might be some way to have the lead address over-arching questions about Einstein's publication history that readers might be interested in. The specific ideas I mentioned were just spur of the moment thoughts, some of which are a little trivial. But not necessary. Marrio (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these citations OK? Willow (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - they look fine to me. Marrio (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment should the title be either List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein or List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein's Work?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't realized that most of the articles at Category:Bibliographies by author use the "by" preposition. I've moved the page now to List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Willow (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I love lists like this! They are so helpful! The sortable option is wonderful. I just reviewed the FL criteria since I don't comment here very often and I think that this list more than meets them. I've been following the list's development and am in awe of the work Willow has put into it - this is an excellent model for all of us who make these kinds of lists. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support I just corrected one minor error and it was really the only one I could find. I do have a few comments though. The article Works by Albert Einstein looks like a mess, seems to give no information which is not exhibited on your list, and should therefore be merged/deleted before this can go featured. Also note that the latter list is placed in categories [[Category:Physics books]] and [[Category:German books]], unlike this one. By the way, is there a reason the "Index" field is coloured? And another thing, which is merely an observation: of all the 106 bibliographies [5], this list is the only one using the adjective "scientific". One might also ask "Did he also publish non-scientific material?", and since I'm pretty sure he did, where can I find it? Are you going to make a "List of non-scientific publications of Albert Einstein"? I think you can't get away with not mentioning his non-scientific work. Anyhow, this is an excellent list. κύδος! Baldrick90 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Baldrick! :) I will broach the subject of the "Works" article being deleted as delicately as I can. I don't think anyone has devoted too much time to it; it was moved from the Albert Einstein article to the elephant's graveyard. I myself discovered it only months after I'd started with this article, although that's more my fault for not being diligent enough in searching. :(

I don't understand the "books" categories, since the list isn't a book itself and consists mainly of journal articles, not books. I wouldn't want to include those categories here, I think.

The reason that the Index cell was colored but the others weren't, was that I'd been trying to highlight the whole set of column headings in that orange-ish-yellow, which I thought complemented the blue-ish hue of the page. Unfortunately, I was thwarted by the table markup, which seems to require that I assign a colour to each column heading separately. That seemed silly, so I've left all the column headings blue and un-highlighted. Anyway, I daresay readers aren't coming to the article to be charmed by my quilting aesthetics. ;)

Einstein did publish many non-scientific works, and I've added a short paragraph to the lead explaining that. I do intend to write a list of Einstein's non-scientific works (part of a long-term program to restore AE to FA), but it may be awhile.

Thank you yet again for your insightful review! :) Willow (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The only list of publications I would ever support, but for good reason too! JFW | T@lk 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

• Quibble: "the order of events" -> "that the order of events" is probably better

No, you're right; keeping the parallel construction going is better writing. Thanks! :) Willow (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The description of E=mc² seems a bit off. The connection to the atomic bomb is not that direct, and in the passage from Pais that is cited it becomes clear that much more than that formula was involved before the binding energies could be predicted correctly. I think a more cautious formulation would be in order.

I included that to engage the reader more strongly, but I agree more-or-less. The cited Pais passage discusses the experimental verification of E=mc² by the mass defect, IIRC, but admittedly it's a long way from there to constructing an atomic bomb. Perhaps the present wording is OK? Willow (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good now. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• general relativity "is based on the surprising idea that empty space" – such a characterization should always mention space and time on an approximately equal footing. To suggest that the properties of space are part of the basic idea, and the variability of time a consequence, is misleading.

I was motivated by the idea that readers might visualize warped space more readily than warped space-time. But you're right, we should be as accurate as possible. I added time in parallel with space, changed "act on" to "interact" and a few other minor changes. Does it seem better now? Willow (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List of articles itself: clearly, an enormous amount of work has gone into this; my compliments. I have not checked this list thoroughly, but I was surprised that the "Collected papers" are mentioned only in passing. Surely, nowadays they are the main reference for Einstein's works. They should at least be cited, and for the article to be perfect, their indexing system should be used for those volumes already published. That indexing system can probably be found in the Einstein archive's online data base, as well. Clearly, this would mean a great amount of additional work, and I think it should not stand in the way of the list's Featured status, but I would think that it would enormously improved the helpfulness of this list to students of the subject.

I'm willing to do this, although I'm not clear on what you mean by the "indexing system" in the Collected Papers. I don't really have access to them, although I did find the Table of Contents online. However, from what I can gather, they only number the articles within each volume; there is no "global" indexing system to Einstein's works. Moreover, the Collected Papers haven't published the final 30-some years of Einstein's work, so I wouldn't want to make a separate column for it. Perhaps you mean that we should note the number and volume in which the article appears, e.g., "Article 2 in Volume 4", in the present "Index" box? Willow (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do mean the article numbering of the Collected Papers. I think including those (doesn't need to be an extra column) would make the list that much more valuable for those with a serious interest in this part of the history of science. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I've done this now. Please let me know if you catch anything I missed. :) Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some haven't gotten a CP number yet. You've done impressive work in getting all the CP numbers up, so I won't quibble, except that Schilpp 9 and 10, seminal as they are, should definitely get a CP number.Markus Poessel (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Na, wenn alles so einfach wär'. ;) Willow (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with these two in the CP? Markus Poessel (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I meant only that I wished everything were so easy to fix as the oversight you pointed out! :) Somehow I'd missed those two titles on my first pass, despite the fact that I was actively looking for them; when I looked again, there they were! :) Willow (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Entry no. 10 should probably mention that this is what is nowadays known as E=mc².
• I think that, for the works that were part of Einstein's journey towards general relativity, it should be made clear that the journey was still not over. E.g. for #37 - that's not a paper on general relativity, it contains some first steps on the path towards that theory. Similarly for #42, #46, #47, and basically everything designated as "general relativity" until #84, which Pais p. 256 comments with "The work is done". This fact should probably also be noted.
• Entry #107 is the birth of modern physical cosmology. That should definitely be noted.
• Entry #119 and related: please wikilink to gravitational waves. And again, it should be noted that this is the birth of another whole subject (even if it took a while to realize that these waves were indeed real, and not just coordinate artefacts).

These four points all relate to the Classification and Commentary column of the tables, which I've intended to fill in more, if others did not. You definitely point out some important lacunae that I'll try to fill. The "steps to GR" vs. "GR" point is, I think, semantic; I'd recommend that we still categorize the article as pertaining to General relativity, but indicate in the commentary that the theory was being developed until the end of November 1915. Willow (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying them as gr is fine (I assume you refer to the initial, bold-faced, wikilinked keyword for each article), but yes, I definitely think the information I indicated should be in the comments. And conspicuously so. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• General wikilinking question. Shouldn't all concepts and names (Jordan, Kaluza) which have their own entries be wikilinked? If they aren't, you're missing some significant cross-connections. In an article, that would be unacceptable, I have no idea whether there are special rules for lists.

You're completely right; I'll try to catch up with those wikilinks. Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Motiv des Forschens and similar articles - are those really "history of physics"? I'd have thought they are more like "philosophy of physics".

I could add that as a category, if you think it's more appropriate. I was trying to keep the categories to a minimum, so that no one accused me of OR. Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but in this case, an extra category might indeed be in order. History doesn't seem to be the right category here. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I added "Philosophy of physics" where it seemed more appropriate. Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's at least one theory of "Telativity" flying around there.

I only found one, and I fixed it. Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unhappy with the translation "Understanding the Special and General Theories of Relativity". The literal translation is "On the special and the general theory of relativity, so that everyone can understand it." The translation I have here has the title "Relativity. The Special and the General Theory. A Popular Exposition" which also captures the essential property: this is written for a general audience.

Yes, I weighed how to translate that title for some time. I knew the phrase "popular exposition" but disliked it, because it seemed not very gemeinverständlich; the reader needs to disambiguate "popular", and to know what an "exposition" is. However, it's admittedly accurate, and I'll use that if you like. The literal translation you give is good, and I toyed with something like that, but we both probably agree that it's too long. The titles "Relativity for Dummies", "Relativity for Beginners" and "Relativity for the Compleat Mathophobe" are already taken (I think). ;) What do you think is best? Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for the less elegant, but also least misleading "Special and General Relativity explained for a general audience". Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the translation found in the Collected Papers (vol. 6): "On the Special and General Theory of Relativity (A Popular Account)". Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Äther under Relativitätstheorie" - is that half-dutch? If it's German, it should be "Äther und Relativitätstheorie".

How embarrassing! :P My mind must've wandered off while transscribing. But maybe Einstein was making a Plattdüütsch compromise—Ensten kunde en begen schnacken, ge? ;) Alles liebe und viel Erfolg, Willow (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But given Einstein's southern-German roots, it's not very likely that he snackt platt. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Schilpp reference, and the word was indeed "und". Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing: Schilpp 37 has nothing to do with general relativity. Quick browsing would suggest it's about the molecular basis of a law of fluid dynamics. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're totally right again. :) Fixed, methinks. :) Willow (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a remarkable list, though. Kudos! Markus Poessel (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This list is very impressive and nicely organized. Two small comments, though:

• In the list of Journal articles in item 188 there is an unbalanced left square bracket in the title column. I don't know where it should end, otherwise I'd have fixed it myself.

• I am wondering if there is a better place in the list where you could position the footnotes/references. With the numbered references being in the first column right next to the index number of the entry, it is optically slightly confusing and has a cluttered look. I am simply wondering, if it wouldn't be better to have the footnote/reference marker appear at the end of the title, rather than next to the index number. This is, however, merely a suggestion, and not a condition for my support.

Again a very nice piece of work! Alexander Falk (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alexander! I added the square backet, and I put the references into the "Classification and notes" column, which seemed more apt, anyway. Thanks for your support and help! :) Willow (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Matthew! :) Willow (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very impressive.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Filll, as always. :) Willow (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This list looks really great, overall. I suggest that the names that come up in titles be linked, either in the title itself, or better yet, in the "Classification and notes" section. Otherwise, for example, it takes a bit of effort to figure out that the Friedrich Adler in one title is Friedrich Adler (assassin).--ragesoss (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm willing, but this will involve a fair amount of work. I agree that the "Classification and notes" is the best column, since the German title isn't commonly understood and we shouldn't interfere with the color coding of the English translations. That suggests having to write a commentary sentence or two for every publication, to have something to wikilink. Also, I'm concerned about overlinking; how often should topics be linked — once per screen? every time? once per article? Willow (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The classification sections have a bolded topic, e.g. "History of physics." You could just make it "History of physics; Karl Schwarzschild." Most of the history of physics entries seem to be at least as much about individuals as a about the history of physics. I don't see any big problem with just wikilinking names in the English title section, either; the violet for unofficial translations will still remain in part of the title, and the link color could be changed as well if need be. By the way, why is the "highlighted in lavender" explanation mentioned again at the start of the table but not the violet text explanation?--ragesoss (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support. Fine article. However: In 1905 Einstein published 21 (!) reviews on thermodynamic topics in "Beiblätter zu den Annalen der Physik". For a list of those articles, see The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 2. I think those scientific publications should at least be mentioned in the article. --D.H (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that when I was addressing Markus' comments. For some reason, those reviews are not included in the Schilpp bibliography, which was prepared under Einstein's own supervision and which many other reviews by Einstein. Why would he discount them? It seems strange. Nevertheless, I'll add them next week, once I get back from visiting my sister. Willow (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Einstein's "Beiblätter"-articles were discovered in 1977. See:

Klein, M.J.; Nedell, A. (1977), "Some unnoticed publications by Einstein", Isis, 68: 601–604, doi:10.1086/351878 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

So Schilpp was unaware of those publications, because his book was published long before in 1951. --D.H (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised only that Einstein had forgotten about his own reviews. But I guess it was ~35 years in the past. I'll try to add those today. Willow (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added all the reviews from volume 2 of the Collected Papers. I may yet "prettify" them; stay tuned. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks a lot. --D.H (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too, D.H! The list wouldn't have been complete without those reviews. :) Willow (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Outstanding. Colin°^Talk 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support
  • Why is there a "pages" column in the Book chapters section? I think it's unnecessary and can be combined with the "chapter title" column.
  • What are the "location" columns for? Is it really that useful to sort the locations where books were published? I suggest merging this column into the "publisher" column.

My interpretation of your first two objections are that I shouldn't have included an extra sortable column for the page numbers, and publication locations, respectively. I understand your point of view, and I'll be glad to comply. However, I feel that both pieces of information are standard bibliographic data that should not be stricken. I also hope that you'll agree that having extra sorting abilities should not disqualify the list from being Featured. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've consolidated the columns, as recommended and it does do wonders for making the tables slimmer. The information is denser, but anyone who needs the information will be able to find it readily. I placed the page numbers under the Book title (rather than the Chapter title), since the pages pertain to the book; I wouldn't want people to think that Einstein had written only part of a chapter! Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why are most of the links in the "notes" column in boldface?

I put the classification in boldface to allow readers to scan it easily, i.e., for ease of navigation of the FL criteria. The classification comes first in that table cell so that Einstein's articles can be sorted (and hence, grouped) by field. However, some readers might wish to sort by another column, and then scan the final column for articles belonging to a particular field. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Per WP:COLOR, color should not be the only indicator.

I'm not sure which color you're referring to. The lavender highlighting of an entire row is used to indicate collaborative papers; the collaboration is likewise indicated in the "Classification and notes" column, immediately following the classification, e.g., "Co-authored with..." Therefore, WP:COLOR has been satisfied for that coloring. The purple titles indicating unofficial translations could be indicated by an asterisk instead; that would likewise allow me to satisfy the requests that I wikilink into the English titles. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the purple font used to indicate unofficial translations, replacing them with a ^§ superscript. Do you agree that WP:COLOR is now satisfied? Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Crzycheetah 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After your latest edits, I now support this list. Yeah, I thought 10 columns in a table was too much and I did mean the purple font was one of the problems. If you just printed this page in a black and white mode, the purple would become black. Great job overall!--Crzycheetah 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeay, thank you, Crzy! :) Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative interruption

The nominating user appears to be taking a break, does anyone want to address the opposition? I'd hate to have to fail it simply because there is nobody to address concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the message on her userpage, that has been there for a while and she has been addressing comments while that message has been there. I'm sure she will respond to the comments above. Please note that her last post says "I'll add them next week, once I get back from visiting my sister". It is Memorial Day weekend in the US, a time when many people take a vacation and visit their families. Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed she was going to be away for a bit, but if she'll be back this week then I'll leave it open. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming commentary and votes

Support: Excellent, useful, and functional! I just have a few comments in order to possibly make it even better.

• How are the scientific publications separated from the others? I noticed that History of Physics articles are included in the list, but would that be under Science or Humanities? You may want to note the criteria used to create the list.

Hi! :) I will try to make that point clearer. The division between scientific and non-scientific was made for me in the Schilpp bibliography, so it's not WP:NOR. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would "moving objects" be better than "moving rods"?

Yes, of course. :) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You gave three counterintuitive predictions for special relativity. Is there room for one more, i.e., mass is also not absolute. Sorry, I had to ask for that being a former particle physicist. :)

That depends on how one defines mass, no? I confess, my physics is rather limited, but my understanding is that the mass m of a particle is usually defined as its invariant mass, i.e., m² = p^μp_μ, which is the same in all reference frames. As part of my research for photon, I learned that alternative definitions of mass such as "relativistic mass", "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" are actively deprecated by physicists, even for pedagogy.

I did mean relativistic mass; my mind was still on accelerators. Concerning the deprecation of those terms, perhaps that gives away my age? Well, better stick to the present! --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that you could be an aged sage, given your spritely sense of humour. ;) Thank you again for your help! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The choice of colours (lavender and violet) are close so for some reason I get mixed up about the significance of one or the other. Would it not be better to use a different colour for one of them? Also if there is a co-authored article that has an unofficial translation (violet text on lavender background), it would be difficult to see. I don't think you have such an example so it is not a problem at the moment, but if another Einstein list, say on non-scientific publications, did have such an example, it would have to use another set of colours.

Very true! I've all but decided to eliminate the violet font for unofficial translations. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done; I've replaced them with a ^§ superscript. Thanks for the suggestion, Buff! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Related to the last point, the unofficial translation colour does not appear in a black-and-white printout, so some other kind of printable marker (an asterisk?) would be helpful.

You read my mind! :D Exactly what I was thinking of doing. :) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done, done. Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to add in the instructions on the sortable list in the lead that a printout will only produce the default sorting and not the chosen sorting.

Excellent point! :) But I think there's a way to defeat that, using the "printable version" button at the right. At least I got it to work early in the writing of this list, and I don't think I used any magic for that. ;) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I used the "printable version" button in the toolbox and that produced output using the default sort. I just tried it now (printing the chosen sorting page directly). That one produced the right sorting. So it does work, so perhaps you only need to mention that the "printable version" button will only produce the default sort. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, these are just suggestions. They have no impact on my vote. A list of works by Feynman next? :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: I see my index-related concerns were address, and a bunch of other stuff I would never even had thought of.

• I still maintain that English translation should be merged with original title (seperated with a "break") and given different fonts to maximize horizontal space usage, but that is nitpicking and does not cause opposition from me.

I sympathize with the wish for more lateral space, believe me! :) It's just that I want to allow readers to sort articles by their English translation; I'm assuming that most readers won't know German and French. The division into two columns has the advantage for long titles (e.g., this one) in that the length of the translation grows equally with the length of the original title. We may have to agree to disagree here. But if the consensus here is to merge the translations, then I'll bend like a willow. ;) Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely believe that the put-translation-in-italics idea simply won't work, if we hope to get this list passed through FLC. Please consider that this list was about to be failed yesterday for not placing quotation marks around the titles (among other things), and that mis-use of italics was cited above as another reason for possibly failing the list. I propose that we consider another route. I've done as you suggested for the first element of the first table ("Journal articles"), placing the translation below the original title, but in a nested table and in a different color. The bordered box around the translation makes it distinguishable even in black-and-white. if you and the other people here agree to this solution, then I'll be glad to re-do all the others in the same way. Willow (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The equations in the notes should all be in html not in .png format. .png does not merge well with text.

I wrote out everything in HTML quite nicely, but but was recently reverted. I didn't want to undo that edit on my say-so alone, but thanks to your comment, I feel emboldened to revert those changes. Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Math-mode re-formatting reverted. Willow (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Aren't all the (translation:) unnecessary in the book chapters? Just give the translation, it's already mentionned at the top of the table that translations are in parenthesis. Cells are already cluttered enough.

OK, I agree. I was just trying to forestall any possibility of confusion. Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation tags removed. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that French translations were sometimes misspelled, sometimes used the graphie rectifiée rules of the 90's for diacritics (although that is probably just a typo on the author's part rather than an actual style decision), and sometimes not properly capitalized (according to French rules). I fixed that, but it is possible that Einstein made typos and used improper capitalization. You should check if things are properly spelled and capitalized. Remarks probably also apply to German articles.

I'll do that checking; thank you! :) Some of it might be due to typographical errors introduced when the Schilpp bibliography was compiled, but it's probably just me. :P Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, this is a list of outstanding value. It should definitively be on the main page as a featured list of the day thing.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly, Headbomb! Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also authorized translations do not give the title of the original work. I believe this should be included. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe the wikilink(s) to be insufficient? Please consider that, in some cases, one translation will cover several original works. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. Well perhaps of column explicit for cross-reference instead of placing it in the notes? Instead of "Title of original work" it could be "Original work(s)" with "Schilpp 15, Schilpp 237" in it or something. Just throwing ideas.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please look at that solution to the double-column problem in Table 1 (Journal articles). Thanks! Willow (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite sure how this makes it possible to sort according to English translation. A bluebox is too visually striking IMO. A cell split is perhaps best. I'll head on the talk page to not clutter this.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns were address, therefore full support. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is the best list on wikipedia! A small thing that is missing i.m.o., is a discussion (just a sentence or two) about the entry:

"Schilpp 278 1937 On gravitational waves Journal of the Franklin Institute, 223, 43–54 General relativity.[227] Co-authored with N. Rosen."

That article has a well known history that is worth mentioning

Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Count! :D I've added the link and a comment or two about the gravitational waves. Willow (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've already supported, and I'm not yet inclined to strike it, but I've just noticed in the classifications column that all the bold text also has a bold full stop, which needs to be unbolded. Also, for the cells with no other text, the full stop can actually be removed because they are in essence fragmented sentences. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, Matthew! :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and un-bolded the full-stops. I didn't want to remove any, since I wasn't sure which should go and which should stay. Let me also say that this looks like an amazing piece of work; I wish I knew enough about the topics to officially support. – Scartol • Tok 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Scartol; your help is always as timely and welcome to me as "the golden apple to the swift girl"; you know how much I appreciate it. :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. I don't know anything about Wikipedia lists, but I'm sure I'd "support" if I did. The amazing WillowW whomps again.... Gnixon (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gnixon; it's nice to hear from you again, it's been tooooo long! :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment A pic of the great man himself maybe? In the Chronology and major themes section maybe? indopug (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, indopug; I'll add one right away. :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [6].

---

Self-nom. This is a list of the Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. The list is as comprehensive as current research allows, and I have noted the instances where there are disagreements among historians as to whether an individual deserves inclusion. This is my first attempt to create a FL, and I welcome all feedback to help me improve it. Karanacs (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Certainly an area outside my expertise but I found it an interesting list nonetheless. Some comments...

• Debate is on-going on WT:FLC regarding the simple emboldening and repetition of list name in the opening sentence of the lead. While this one is slightly better than most, you could consider a more descriptive opening sentence to capture the imagination and forgo the emboldening altogether. Just a thought.
• You link Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna twice in quick succession.
• You link Mexican Texas twice in the lead as well and pipe it to Texas. To a non-expert (e.g. me) this is confusing.
• "had huddled together " a little bit POV.
• " two ultimately survived" I think ultimately is a little redundant?
• San Antonio de Bexar is linked twice in the lead.
• I'd prefer to see births and deaths in separate columns.
• I'd prefer names in normal order, you can use the {{sortname}} template to ensure the sort still works.
• Remove Alsbury's period in his status column.
• You use black and Negro interchangeably - is there a preference or is this ok? Just a question...
• Order references numerically, you have [22][20] for example.
• I never find sorting notes is very helpful since it's free text.
• I'd pipe the {{reflist}} with 2 since the footnotes are all very short.

That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very helpful comments. I've implemented changes to address almost all of these issues. I would prefer not to separate out the birth and death years; I had it that way originally and it made the notes column too compressed to be very useful. I'm also not that familiar with sortable table script, and I'm not sure how to make it sort everything except the notes. I'd appreciate any advice on that matter. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I've never actually commented on an FLC before; hopefully my comments aren't too out of whack.
  • I'm concerned that the lead may not be establishing enough context for our non-American readers. For example, I'd suggest including the location of the battle in the first sentence. "after an insurgent army" to "after an insurgent army of Texans" perhaps? "freedman" - link?
  • "fewer than 50 of the Texans" Context needed here. "fewer than 50 of the ___# Texans"
  • "Negro cook"??? It's not in quotes. BuddingJournalist 08:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I don't know what I'm doing either, but I think you brought up good points. I've added some detail to the lead to insert the name of the city in the first sentence as well as the number of Texans thought to be at the Alamo (although that is an estimate at best - historians are still arguing about it). I've also added detail about the makeup of the army, added a wikilink to freedman, and rewritten the description of Ben so that it makes more sense. I've been living and breathing the Texas Revolution for a few weeks now, and I definitely appreciate any other pointers about knowledge I may be assuming people already have. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good. Though I can't check your facts and know nothing about the subject, it appears thoroughly referenced. I had to read the lead a few times before I got it. The first time, I thought "brought to Santa Anna" meant a place and then couldn't figure out how a place could be "impressed with Susanna Dickinson". Jim Bowie is mentioned without explaining who he is. The last sentence confused me. Why would Santa Anna try to impress Joe, a slave? It is a bit ambiguous which "his" is "his army". I'm guessing (from what follows) you mean Santa Anna's army, but the "surviving members" bit causes confusion with the topic of this list. And why is it worth noting that this parade gave "Joe an opportunity to judge the strength"? A quick look at the main article indicates Joe might have been important in relaying his account to others. Did that information prove useful? Colin°^Talk 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've revamped the lead a bit more. It's now organized in a more logical manner, and it has a new paragraph that explains why Santa Anna wanted to impress Joe and what the result was. I've also further clarified some of the details that were confusing. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helped. Colin°^Talk 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well-organized and interesting list, with a solid lead. One question: Ben is referred to as a "Negro cook"; I'd change that, as it's certainly not a term in modern usage—and it's not a quote. MeegsC | Talk 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought I had fixed that everywhere. It should all be changed to more modern terminology now. Karanacs (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, list looks really good. GreenJoe 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'd like to see the timezone (wikilinked) included with 6:30 a.m. in the lead
• "fewer than 50 of the less than 250 Texans" I know what it means, but "fewer than... the less than" in the same sentence is clumsy. Perhaps "fewer than 50 of nearly 250 Texans"?
• Do you have a reference for the final sentence of the lead?
• Not a deal-breaker, but can you separate the birth/death column into two separate ones? That way the death dates can be sortable, too
• Are three references needed for Joe, Guerrero and Alsbury? Are these people particularly controversial or disputed in some way that extra verification is needed?

That's all I got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The concept of a timezone was only invented in 1847, and only came to the US around 1870. So 6:30 am should be interpreted as local time, whatever that may be. That time, expressed as Central Time might well be quite different. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your comments. The three references are necessary because no one source included all of the information for each person. I've also experimented with separating the birth and death dates, but it made the notes column too short and the table looked very bad. I've reworded the "fewer than ...less than" sentence as you suggested, and added a citation for the last sentence. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't see any problems, although the image layout in the lead is odd. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything checks out. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [7].

---

First FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007)
Second FLC (17:54, 16 January 2008)
previous FLC (19:39, 5 February 2008)

I am nominating this list after making necessary changes. Most of the credit goes to Buc. I made the table sortable and I believe this has become a useful page. Any comments/concerns are going to be addressed.--Crzycheetah 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

1)Why is there no bolding in the lead (to justify the name of the article)?

2)Is a key really necessary? I don't think it would hurt to write out all the positions.

3)There are many picks that need to be sourced. Until those are sourced, will this list have a chance.

Regards, --~SRS~ 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1) Per WP:LEAD, If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface. 2) I think a key is necessary, but if more people agree with you, I'll change; right now this is just a personal preference. 3) There is a general reference [8] that is used as a source for all picks. Thanks for the comments!--Crzycheetah 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also forgot to mention, there's a discussion at WT:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence about repeating the title in the first sentence.--Crzycheetah 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply

1)I forgot about that, Im sorry.

2)Okay.

3)In the Notes section you put individual references for many picks, but you left many unsourced.--~SRS~ 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Oh, the "Notes" column is for the picks that were either received from or traded to other teams. The picks that don't have any notes are the Saints' own picks.--Crzycheetah 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to just write out the note, IMO. However, you need to put under the table, that your main source is that NFL page you showed me.~SRS~ 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think writing out the notes in the table would mess up the table; instead I am going to separate the notes from the refs, as Gonzo fan2007 suggested below. This way it will be more obvious that these are the notes and not the sources. The site I showed you here is listed under general in the references section. --Crzycheetah 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice work, I can finally say I support this list as a FL. Thank you Crzycheetah. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments were really helpful and made this list much better than it was.--Crzycheetah 04:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Link "expansion team " for non-experts.
• "and first participated in the 1967 NFL Draft" perhaps "first participated in the NFL Draft that year."
• "In the "NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting," which is more commonly known ..." remove "which is"...
• "second worst " should that be hyphenated?
• Why is always in italics?
• "The Saints had been given two first-round picks" how?
• Image caption is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a period.
• "The Saints have selected first overall once, drafting George Rogers in 1981,[5] second overall twice, Archie Manning in 1971 and Reggie Bush in 2006,[6] and third overall once, Wes Chandler in 1978.[3]" drafting needs to be reused here for Archie and Wes...
• Table sorting is all over the place.
  • Clicking on Pick four times gives me four different sort orders. Surely it should either be only ascending or descending order?
  • Names don't sort correctly (i.e. by surname) - use the {{sortname}} template for this.
  • Notes don't need to be sortable.

So for me it's oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think I addressed your concerns. Could you take a second look?--Crzycheetah 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please read [[WT::FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence]] regarding the first sentence being an exact copy of the title
• A reference is needed for the second sentence of the Lead
• Does the first reference verify everything stated in the remainder of the paragraph?
• Use an mdash (—) rather than a hyphen for "empty" entries in the table, per WP:DASH/WP:HYPHEN
• Why is "no pick" in bold and itallic?
• For some reason the references in the table don't take me anywhere when clicked, although the notes themselves do.

A few concerns to be addressed before I support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments!

• With all due respect, the first sentence is not an exact copy of the title.

• Not an exact copy, but it says the same thing in a different word order. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's there to tell readers what this page is about, so that they know that they are reading the correct page. --Crzycheetah 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference is added to the second sentence.
• Yes, the first reference does verify.
• "—" are used now.
• To catch attention of the reader.

• Does this give it undue weight, then? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, bolded parts are removed. I left the italics part because "no picks" is not a player's name, so it should be presented differently.--Crzycheetah 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no references in the table, only notes.

• I'm referring to the alphabetised ref notes, but I've realised it's a problem with Firefox. IE works okay. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate those "browser" problems, even though I just checked this page on Firefox and it works fine.

Hope to read your comments soon! --Crzycheetah 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Good work. Noble Story (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [9].

---

I have rewritten this page, following the style and format of several other NHL player lists which have passed featured list criteria. Actually, I've added some improvements, such as a table in the "Key" section to name the nationality of each of the flag icons, per WP:Manual of style (flags). Also, it has bothered me that many of the other lists in this series only include the current franchise incarnation, so I also created List of Edmonton Oilers (WHA) players linked from this article as a companion list. The latter is not part of this nomination, but might help explain the context of this list criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport
  • All the redlinks need to be fixed.
  • The lead seems rather short and doesn't read very well. A brief explanation detailing that the Oilers weren't exactly an expansion team in the NHL, but rather a former WHA team is necessary for readers unfamiliar with hockey.
  • The Notes section is inconsistent with it's numbering for years (ex. SC 84 as opposed to Conn Smythe 1990).
  • For a list this size more photos would probably be appropriate. There are more Oilers available, notably Gretzky and Messier. While they may not be in Oilers colours, they are specifically two of the most noteworthy Oilers ever, and deserve to be shown here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Done, for the most part. With respect to the redlinks, I note that WP:Featured list criteria says that the list should have a "minimal proportion of red links", not a complete absence of them. As of 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC) there are only 10 missing articles out of 396 players, so I would not think this would stop FL promotion. Nonetheless, I shall create those 10 new articles in the next day or so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A good looking list. The redlink issue is something I came across in some of my FL noms, and just looks better having all that blue. Also helps finish up the task of giving all NHLers an article. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I created Ron Carter (ice hockey)‎, Dan Currie (ice hockey), Jim Ennis‎, and Peter Eriksson (ice hockey) today, so there are only six redlinks left. Thanks for your support! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This list is definately worthy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The pictures are hiding the section edit links. Can that be fixed? Maxim_(talk) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What browser are you using, and what screen size? I see the section edit links just fine with IE7, even on a smaller 1024x768 screen. Do you see a difference between this list and any of the other NHL player lists? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed it. The problem is that you put them all right at the top...the edits links were there but they are pushed to the bottom of the article when you do that. Atleast in Firefox. The Calgary list does not have this problem and I think its cause they are put on the article in this fashion. -Djsasso (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I don't know about "fixed". Firefox is broken, IMO. The list now looks terrible on XGA displays, since the main player table is too wide and every row takes multiple lines. I originally put the images at the top for a reason, so that on XGA raster sizes only the goalie table would have that problem and the main player table would still look neat. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevermind then...you can figure it out. I reverted my edit. I have a bunch of whitespace between pictures and table so I didn't think there would be an issue at any resolution. Personally I think XGA has the issue if the table is too wide as the table is hardly wide at all. Do you have the same issue on the Calgary list of it being two lines? Though looking at that list the notes column is a bit smaller so you might not have that issue. -Djsasso (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'd still like to fix this, but perhaps a post to WP:Village pump (technical) with respect to Firefox might be in order. As for the Calgary list, no, it doesn't have this problem, as the "Notes" column in that table isn't very wide. They only won one Cup... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I think.... I followed the instructions at WP:How to fix bunched-up edit links, and it looks the same for me with IE7, so I don't think I made it worse! But did I make it better? Does it look correct for you Firefox users now? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good list. Maxim_(talk) 21:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Hi. Per the MOS's WP:COLOUR, use a text marker as well as coloured shaded cells. Something such as *, †, ‡, or ^ because if the page was printed out, or a user has B&W monitor, the colour isn't going to be printed. . Also, if you could, try to use different markers for Stanley cup winners, NHL award winners, and Hall of Fame electees which would help with the single colour use
• Read WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence, regarding the opening sentence of "This is a <repeat name of article title>".
• Also think that the second two sentences of the first paragraph ("It includes all ice hockey players that have played at least one regular season or playoff game for the Edmonton Oilers in the NHL since the 1979–80 season. It does not include any players who only played for the team as a franchise in the World Hockey Association (WHA) from 1972 to 1979.") should be at the end of the Lead section, so that the rest of the prose describes the team and players, and then it moves on to discuss the list which follows.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. On the first point, I certainly understand WP:COLOUR, and I thought I had that covered. All of the "blue" rows are also labelled with tags in the Notes column (SC, HHOF, etc.) so I didn't think any additional special characters were required, and for the "green" rows, I bolded the names. Do you not think bold text is sufficient? As an aside, I note that several of the other lists in this series that have already been promoted do not conform to this guideline, as the 2007–08 players are only shown in green. (e.g. List of Buffalo Sabres players, List of Calgary Flames players, List of New Jersey Devils players, etc.) so I would presume they need updating with respect to this guideline. (None of them follow the WP:MOSFLAG suggestions for flag icon usage either, by not providing a legend that identifies each flag by country name at least once on the page.)

I understand your point, all we can do as reviewers is push the point that the MOS has to be followed. If you feel any FLs don't meet that, you could always nominate them at WP:FLRC or simply change them yourself which is often what I do with minor things like that when I spot them. Anyway, I initially missed the SC HHOFs, so don't worry about it now. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the second and third points, I can certainly improve the lead. I had always thought that lists like these needed to identify the criteria for inclusion very close to the start. Also, as this list is clearly "secondary" to the main Edmonton Oilers article, I will need to make sure that this lead is not written too generally about the team and still focuses on the list itself. Anyway, I will work on this later, but I will address it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rewrote the lead section. Also added "Details are provided in the Notes column." to the legend key for the blue colour to help emphasize the additional non-colour markers. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A British flag is included in the key, but no player in the list is marked as British. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Thanks for picking that up—it was left over from an older draft that also included WHA players (which I decided to split into a separate article). Chris Worthy was born in England but moved to Canada as an infant. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [10].

---

Well written, it seems to meet all FL criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The first sentence, This is a complete list of Philadelphia Eagles head coaches., is basically redundant to the title of the article. Is it possible to make the first sentence more informative, something that would draw a reader in?
• Needs non-breaking spaces.
• I'd like to see the lead expanded some.
• Statistics correct as of December 30, 2007, after the end of the 2007 NFL season. could be worded better.
• Optional, but I like to see a reference for every coach in the chart. Good work overall, but there's just a few minor issues. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. Issues addressed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All concerns addressed, looks good to me. Noble Story (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [11].

---

previous FLC (20:12, 11 May 2008) Self-nomination Well written lead, and well referenced table. Seems readt for FL. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why the re-nomaination so soon after the first failed? And what is with the arrogant nomination statement of the well written lead when you yourself wrote it? Qst (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm renominating it because the first nomination simply failed because of "lack of comments" « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Qst, he's just trying to highlight why he thinks it meets the FL criteria. There's no penalty against stroking your ego once in a while. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further: I actually didn't write the lead; Jayron32 rewrote it. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, no probs - I was just curious. Qst (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is only one one-sentence paragraphs, and it is fine the way it is. It is a completely different idea from the last, which warrents a new para. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me now. However, one quibble: Perhaps the last sentence of the lead could go down as a note at the end of the table (like so). Noble Story (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work, no major issues. As always, a copyedit wouldn't hurt, but the prose is generally good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [12].

---

The List of encyclicals of Pope John Paul II is already featured, so I had a go at bringing this to the same standard (hopefully!). The introduction is much expanded providing some background to each encyclical. Overall, I believe, it meets the criteria. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The introduction says two of his encyclicals are "classic". What in the world does that mean? These aren't records we are talking about :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exhibiting timeless quality! But I agree it doesn't sound very encyclopaedic and have reworded the sentence. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have? I don't see any difference or changes for today... wierd! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost 100% sure I pressed save, oh well, the change is definitely there now! Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — I went through and copyedited the prose. Some areas were in past tense, while others were in present—I changed everything to past tense, where appropriate. There were also a few comma problems, but nothing major. Overall, this is a well-written, well-cited, clear, and concise list of a very notable subject. Good work to all involved, and I look forward to seeing it become featured! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copy edit and the kind words. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I actually changed the bit about the encyclical measuring 25,000 words as that seemed an odd idea/use of the word. Hope you don't mind. Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There are several quibbles, though.
  • The numbers in the table should be centered.
    • Done
  • The "Time" references should have retrieval dates in case the site goes down and people use the wayback machine.
    • Done
  • I wish the "jstor" reference got substituted, but if it stays, it should have a note saying "subscription required" because I can't access it.

--Crzycheetah 04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "jstor" reference, it is relevant to the bit about applying natural law to the international community. I would like to keep it as I have not found this analysis anywhere else. I understand the problem of accessibility and so have quoted the sentence of the paper in full in the references. This obviously makes it easier to check what the reference said but does make the ref list a bit more bulky. Hope this helps. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that quotation is very helpful, thanks.--Crzycheetah 22:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [13].

---

Self-nomination. One of my favorite local bands that just recently got back together. This list is similar to other band which didn't have material chart on any significant charts. Teemu08 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support but with a few questions (cleanup):

• What's a "minor punk rock hit"? How's it different from a minor hit?
• Isn't The Party's Over a compilation?
• No pics? Even of individual band members? Even on Flickr?
• An external link to the band's official website or a one to a discography on a fansite would be nice. indopug (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. I've clarified the punk rock statement. I searched Flickr, and there aren't CC pictures that we can use that have a non-commercial license. I should have brought my camera last time I saw them in concert :). The Popes don't have a website, but I'll list an external discography and a fansite. I originally listed The Party's Over as a compilation, but changed my mind. Although it was released after the breakup of the band and released on a different label than the one that recorded it, its still the same studio album that the Popes submitted to Capitol. It's a thin line, but there's nothing I can see wrong about listing it as a studio album. Teemu08 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Until the B-Side issue is resolved for good, I'll support the nomination despite their inclusion. Otherwise, good work! Drewcifer (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [16].

---

previous FLC (16:14, 8 May 2008)

Self-nom. Left it a bit late to fix some errors in intro, but I believe all issues have been addressed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice list! Great work. Drewcifer (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are so many charts needed? They really make the screen look clustered, and many charts aren't that important nor has the band charted much on them. I'd say get rid of a few. Albums: Mexico, Italy, Portugal. Singles: US adult, US dig, Can dig, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Austria. For music directors, combine adjacent entries with same director using rowspan. Make Singles, Music videos, Other apps column width the same. Roswell isn't linked in the tables. indopug (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this meant to be a comprehensive discography? Surely its a bit NPOV to remove certain charts? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way, if you had easy online access to each and every country this band charted, you would then have about one hundred to include into this article. Would you then still consider not including some of the countries where the band did not chart significantly POV? By "comprehensive" we mean that each and every release is included, not necessarily each and every chart. indopug (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take your point. My last comment was a bit naive. Which charts should I remove? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already listed them above. Also, I think UK should be next to US because for English rock bands, US and UK are the two most important territories in terms of sales, marketing, promotion etc. Lastly, in the certifications change RIAA to US and so on (but link it to RIAA) because many people wont know the different certifiers (I myself have no clue what IRMA is). indopug (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do. I'm not sure about shifting the countries around. Again, I actually agree, it would be knuckleheaded of me to say that US/UK aren't the most important. But then surely all the charts should be listed in this kind of order, and not only English ones. This is something that needs to be discussed more centrally. If a precedent is reached through consensus and reasoned debate, I will implement the edits, but right now it has not been. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Top internet albums can go too, I haven't seen it used in any other discography. And your method of citing the BPI certifications is wrong; click on the links I provided for each BPI certification reference at The Libertines discography. Like this, so the reader doesn't have to search. indopug (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good find re: the BPI stuff. I'll get that done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted BPI stuff. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are an obscene number of US charts in the Singles section. I think component charts like the US Airplay cannot be included along with the Hot 100 anyway, and I think the Adult and Digital charts can go too. For one, I haven't seen them anywhere else. The Pop 100 doesn't have any really notable hits either so I wouldn't cringe to see it go either. It looks silly having seven charts just dedicated to the US. The Hot 100, Main and Mod Rock charts are what are used to mainly to track rock bands anyway. Reducing the number of American charts would leave about 12-13 charts, giving a more pleasant appearance to the whole table and also reduces the overwhelming feel it has. indopug (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I feel this is a bit of a contradiction to what you said at the Supergrass FLC. Perhaps this needs discussing more at Wikipedia talk:CHART and MOS:DISCOG's talk pages. I'd definitely insist on the removal of US Airplay, Pop, Adult and Digital. Modern Rock and Mainstream could also go for me. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed charts, kept two per Indopug and RHCP and Nirvana discog Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great. Wonderful work. indopug (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.